Trust-Level Risk Evaluation and Risk Control Guidance in the NHS East of England

In recent years, the healthcare sector has adopted the use of operational risk assessment tools to help understand the systems issues that lead to patient safety incidents. But although these problem-focused tools have improved the ability of healthcare organizations to identify hazards, they have not translated into measurable improvements in patient safety. One possible reason for this is a lack of support for the solution-focused process of risk control. This article describes a content analysis of the risk management strategies, policies, and procedures at all acute (i.e., hospital), mental health, and ambulance trusts (health service organizations) in the East of England area of the British National Health Service. The primary goal was to determine what organizational-level guidance exists to support risk control practice. A secondary goal was to examine the risk evaluation guidance provided by these trusts. With regard to risk control, we found an almost complete lack of useful guidance to promote good practice. With regard to risk evaluation, the trusts relied exclusively on risk matrices. A number of weaknesses were found in the use of this tool, especially related to the guidance for scoring an event's likelihood. We make a number of recommendations to address these concerns. The guidance assessed provides insufficient support for risk control and risk evaluation. This may present a significant barrier to the success of risk management approaches in improving patient safety. © 2013 Society for Risk Analysis.

Evaluation of the KA24 (Knowledge Access 24) service for health and social care staff in London and the South-East of England. Part 1: Quantitative

Cumbers, B., Urquhart, C. & Durbin, J. (2006). Evaluation of the KA24 (Knowledge Access 24) service for health and social care staff in London and the South-East of England. Part 1: Quantitative. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 23(2), 133-139 Sponsorship: KA24 - NHS Trusts, London

{A }calm address to the inhabitants of England

PDF file

Occurrence Of Mytilicola-Intestinalis Steuer An Intestinal Copepod Parasite Of Mytilus In Southwest Of England

The occurrence of Mytilicola intestinalis in populations of mussels in south-west England is recorded and compared with previous data. Since 1955 there have been two main changes in the distribution of Mytilicola: (a) it has invaded all the major estuarine mussel populations on the Bristol Channel coast, and (b) many previously uninfested open-coast populations all round the peninsula are now lightly infested. It is suggested that differences in infestation levels between estuarine and open-coast populations of mussels are due primarily to differences in the degree of exposure to wave action although factors such as size, population density and location of the hosts also influence infestation. The chance of the establishment of breeding pairs of Mytilicola depends on the parasite population size and its distribution through the host population.

Ecological Relations Between the Herring and the Plankton off The North-East Coast of England

I. 430 plankton samples, which were taken by several herring drifters using the Continuous Plankton Recorder in the Shields fishing area during the summer seasons of 1931 to 1933, are analysed to show the main changes in the plankton during those seasons. 2. A comparison is made between the proportions of the different zooplankton organisms found in the plankton and the proportions of these recorded by Savage (1937) in the stomachs of herring obtained from drifters working in the same area and during the same time. The comparisons are made for 29 ten-day periods in the seasons 1931 to 1933, and in addition, for 6 ten-day periods relating to a single drifter which obtained both plankton and stomach samples at the same time in 1932. 3. The comparisons in 2 provide evidence that the herring feeds by selecting certain organisms by individual acts of capture and not by swimming open-mouthed to strain out the plankton indiscriminately: (a) Calanus and Temora in the stomachs either correspond fairly closely to the proportions in the plankton or they may be in very much higher proportions. The latter is always true regarding Anomalocera. (b) Acartia, Oithona, Cladocera and Lamellibranch larvae are always in larger proportions in the plankton than in the stomachs; this applies also to Centropages with two insignificant exceptions. (c) There is a close correspondence between the numbers of Limacina and Sagitta in the plankton and stomachs in the latter half of the 1931 season, but not during 1932 and 1933, when the numbers in the stomachs were insignificant ; during the former period there was a great scarcity of Calanus in the plankton.